We looked at two main reasons almost everyone will agree will justify taking another human's life. Now I want to look at reasons which do not justify taking a human life, but are sometimes used as justifications for abortion.
It's Legal: If not readily apparent, the legality of something says nothing about its morality. If being legal made something moral, then activism and social justice would be immoral, because to fight against what is legal would mean to fight against something which is moral. We couldn't judge our slave owning ancestors for their immorality because they were living within the law. We couldn't judge the Japanese internment camps we had in the U.S., the child separation policy with illegal immigrants now, the genocides committed by various governments, etc. Governmental law is descriptive, not necessarily morally prescriptive.
It's Legal: If not readily apparent, the legality of something says nothing about its morality. If being legal made something moral, then activism and social justice would be immoral, because to fight against what is legal would mean to fight against something which is moral. We couldn't judge our slave owning ancestors for their immorality because they were living within the law. We couldn't judge the Japanese internment camps we had in the U.S., the child separation policy with illegal immigrants now, the genocides committed by various governments, etc. Governmental law is descriptive, not necessarily morally prescriptive.
We Don't Know if the Unborn has Life: I don't see how anyone can still deny that a fetus is human life, but some still try. But if they are really uncertain, it seems ludicrous to say "since we don't know, we should be able to destroy it." If we are uncertain whether life is present, we should not risk killing life. They teach you that in hunter's safety before you pull the trigger and they teach that to construction workers before they demolish a building. You are responsible for recklessly destroying life. If we don't know, we take a protective stance.
Parents Can't Support: It may be true that many who chose abortion do so because they feel incapable of supporting a child financially, physically, emotionally, or in some other way. I get that. But what if we follow this logic out? Should we kill orphans or those in foster care because their parents can't support them? If a parent loses their job when their child is five and can no longer support their child, can they kill her? What about teenage boys who run up the grocery bill? Can parents kill them if they decide they can no longer support them?
But support isn't only financial. What if a parent can't support their child with an adequate amount of time or attention? What if their child has special needs? Right now doctors run tests during pregnancy to help mothers determine if they can (or are willing to) support their children in pregnancy. One of the common disorders tested for is Down's Syndrome. Awhile back, Spain ran an advertisement picturing a girl with Down Syndrome to encourage parents to get tests for their children in the womb. The message was essentially that this life is not worth sustaining. Fortunately, we are not yet so calloused that we are willing to take all the lives of those with Down Syndrome. We let those who are born with it live, though logically that seems inconsistent if you advocate for the death of these same humans prior to their birth. If parents can abort a fetus because they won't support it, why not allow this for older dependents as well?
Society is Better Off: There was an interesting hypothesis put forth awhile back which correlated the legalization of abortion with reduced crime rates. If this were true, that abortion reduced violent crime, would it justify taking human life? Not at all! Should we be able to kill those in persistent welfare? What about instituting the death penalty for repeat criminal offenders, knowing what the data says about recidivism? How can the pro-choice group which is usually against the death penalty for criminals pre-sentence the unborn to death based only on statistics, before they have merited any disfavor? What about looking at crime statistics and culling different demographics according to how much they drain the system? We recognize that such things are immoral and ridiculous. Beyond this, how terrible is it that we are essentially telling those who've had problematic childhoods that we'd all be better off if they were dead?
Women Will Die: Yes, making abortion illegal would likely increase the amount of women who die seeking abortions. Yes, this is tragic. But even if 50% of women would die performing illegal abortions (a gross overestimation), right now 99% of attempted abortions end in a child's death. When you consider the number of lives lost in the currently easy, accessible, cheap procedure of abortion now versus the number of lives which would be lost if it were made illegal, it just doesn't compare.
The problem with all these bad reasons for taking life is that they require a certain presupposition to work. Yes, making abortion illegal is more tragic due to the loss of women's lives - if aborted fetuses aren't living humans. But if a fetus is human, then keeping abortion legal is far more tragic. Yes, abortion is legal, which is great - if it hasn't legalized injustice against a living human being. These bad arguments all require one to adhere to the presupposition that a fetus is not a living human, or that being human confers value and rights. It strikes me that some of these arguments were used to justify the continuation of slavery. How could such a large number of freed slaves support themselves? The continuation of slavery was a mercy to them. Society be harmed by freed slaves - through the vengeance some would seek with violence, for their economic drain due to their poverty, for their taking of jobs, and for the new cost of what used to be free labor. We all recognize that these are not justified reasons one can give to treat another as property, yet pro-choice advocates use these arguments to justify treating fetuses as non-human property. We don't allow these types of bad arguments to justify what our forbears did to indigenous groups in the past, we don't allow these arguments to legitimize genocide by dictators, and we don't allow these arguments to work against those who are draining on our society. How then can these arguments legitimize the killing of the unborn humans unless we are proposing their lack of humanity?
Even worse than the bad argumentation, some pro-choice advocates attempt to shut down discussion by claiming that only women are able to speak to the issue - the party with the largest vested interest in maintaining abortions. That would be like saying only plantation owners or only those in slave states could speak to the issue of slavery, as it affected them. When we defend the innocent, every voice is important. This is what helps to balance out bias. It's why American citizens of all stripes can call out the government for the mishandling of immigrants. One doesn't need to be an immigrant or a politician to do so - and thank God for that. It's only because of the voice of non-illegal immigrant people that politicians changed their minds. The oppressed and voiceless need someone beyond themselves and their oppressor to fight for them.
1. The Foundational Question: What is killed in abortion?
2. How to Determine Value and Rights: What quality and types of qualities confer rights and value to an individual?
3. Justified Reasons for Taking Human Life: What justifies the taking of human life?
4. Unjustified Reasons for Taking Life: What reasons fail to justify the taking of human life?
5. Bad Christian Arguments and Witness: Common pro-life/Christian arguments and actions which can undermine the pro-life position.
6. Counterrebuttals: A response to significant objections to the pro-life arguments.
7. Conclusion:
8. Resources:
Parents Can't Support: It may be true that many who chose abortion do so because they feel incapable of supporting a child financially, physically, emotionally, or in some other way. I get that. But what if we follow this logic out? Should we kill orphans or those in foster care because their parents can't support them? If a parent loses their job when their child is five and can no longer support their child, can they kill her? What about teenage boys who run up the grocery bill? Can parents kill them if they decide they can no longer support them?
But support isn't only financial. What if a parent can't support their child with an adequate amount of time or attention? What if their child has special needs? Right now doctors run tests during pregnancy to help mothers determine if they can (or are willing to) support their children in pregnancy. One of the common disorders tested for is Down's Syndrome. Awhile back, Spain ran an advertisement picturing a girl with Down Syndrome to encourage parents to get tests for their children in the womb. The message was essentially that this life is not worth sustaining. Fortunately, we are not yet so calloused that we are willing to take all the lives of those with Down Syndrome. We let those who are born with it live, though logically that seems inconsistent if you advocate for the death of these same humans prior to their birth. If parents can abort a fetus because they won't support it, why not allow this for older dependents as well?
Society is Better Off: There was an interesting hypothesis put forth awhile back which correlated the legalization of abortion with reduced crime rates. If this were true, that abortion reduced violent crime, would it justify taking human life? Not at all! Should we be able to kill those in persistent welfare? What about instituting the death penalty for repeat criminal offenders, knowing what the data says about recidivism? How can the pro-choice group which is usually against the death penalty for criminals pre-sentence the unborn to death based only on statistics, before they have merited any disfavor? What about looking at crime statistics and culling different demographics according to how much they drain the system? We recognize that such things are immoral and ridiculous. Beyond this, how terrible is it that we are essentially telling those who've had problematic childhoods that we'd all be better off if they were dead?
Women Will Die: Yes, making abortion illegal would likely increase the amount of women who die seeking abortions. Yes, this is tragic. But even if 50% of women would die performing illegal abortions (a gross overestimation), right now 99% of attempted abortions end in a child's death. When you consider the number of lives lost in the currently easy, accessible, cheap procedure of abortion now versus the number of lives which would be lost if it were made illegal, it just doesn't compare.
The problem with all these bad reasons for taking life is that they require a certain presupposition to work. Yes, making abortion illegal is more tragic due to the loss of women's lives - if aborted fetuses aren't living humans. But if a fetus is human, then keeping abortion legal is far more tragic. Yes, abortion is legal, which is great - if it hasn't legalized injustice against a living human being. These bad arguments all require one to adhere to the presupposition that a fetus is not a living human, or that being human confers value and rights. It strikes me that some of these arguments were used to justify the continuation of slavery. How could such a large number of freed slaves support themselves? The continuation of slavery was a mercy to them. Society be harmed by freed slaves - through the vengeance some would seek with violence, for their economic drain due to their poverty, for their taking of jobs, and for the new cost of what used to be free labor. We all recognize that these are not justified reasons one can give to treat another as property, yet pro-choice advocates use these arguments to justify treating fetuses as non-human property. We don't allow these types of bad arguments to justify what our forbears did to indigenous groups in the past, we don't allow these arguments to legitimize genocide by dictators, and we don't allow these arguments to work against those who are draining on our society. How then can these arguments legitimize the killing of the unborn humans unless we are proposing their lack of humanity?
Even worse than the bad argumentation, some pro-choice advocates attempt to shut down discussion by claiming that only women are able to speak to the issue - the party with the largest vested interest in maintaining abortions. That would be like saying only plantation owners or only those in slave states could speak to the issue of slavery, as it affected them. When we defend the innocent, every voice is important. This is what helps to balance out bias. It's why American citizens of all stripes can call out the government for the mishandling of immigrants. One doesn't need to be an immigrant or a politician to do so - and thank God for that. It's only because of the voice of non-illegal immigrant people that politicians changed their minds. The oppressed and voiceless need someone beyond themselves and their oppressor to fight for them.
1. The Foundational Question: What is killed in abortion?
2. How to Determine Value and Rights: What quality and types of qualities confer rights and value to an individual?
3. Justified Reasons for Taking Human Life: What justifies the taking of human life?
4. Unjustified Reasons for Taking Life: What reasons fail to justify the taking of human life?
5. Bad Christian Arguments and Witness: Common pro-life/Christian arguments and actions which can undermine the pro-life position.
6. Counterrebuttals: A response to significant objections to the pro-life arguments.
7. Conclusion:
8. Resources:
RSS Feed